| Literature DB >> 25512113 |
Yali Li, Xinmei Chen, Jie Xue, Jiangyun Liu, Xinhua Chen1, Muhuyati Wulasihan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To identify the chemical structure of Coreopsis tinctoria extracts and their effect and mechanism on reducing blood lipid in hyperlipemia mice.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25512113 PMCID: PMC4290814 DOI: 10.1186/1476-511X-13-193
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lipids Health Dis ISSN: 1476-511X Impact factor: 3.876
Figure 1HPLC/DAD analysis of extract from Xinjiang Coreopsis tinctoria. HPLC chromatographic profile of Coreopsis tinctoria extracts. (A) Total Coreopsis tinctoria extracts from dry flower top (B) total flavonoid at 348 nm. (C) the major compound marinin at 348 nm.
Average food intake changes (g/mice)
| Normal diet (n = 11) | Hyperlipidemia (n = 12) | CT 100 mg/kg (n = 12) | CT 200 mg/kg (n = 12) | Fenofibrate (n = 12) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High lipid diet 1 week | 6.19 ± 0.46** | 5.36 ± 0.22 | 5.30 ± 0.25 | 5.30 ± 0.22 | 5.33 ± 0.23 |
| High lipid diet 2 weeks | 6.30 ± 0.89** | 4.91 ± 0.58 | 5.12 ± 0.55 | 5.06 ± 0.57 | 4.94 ± 0.35 |
| Treatment 1 week | 6.58 ± 1.43 | 5.22 ± 1.16 | 5.56 ± 1.19 | 5.25 ± 1.23 | 5.62 ± 1.08 |
| Treatment 2 weeks | 4.62 ± 0.18 | 4.61 ± 0.29 | 4.55 ± 0.19 | 4.45 ± 0.24 | 4.57 ± 0.26 |
| Treatment 3 weeks | 5.01 ± 0.02 | 4.55 ± 0.47 | 4.56 ± 0.28 | 4.20 ± 0.46 | 4.32 ± 0.40 |
| Treatment 4 weeks | 4.77 ± 0.22 | 4.30 ± 0.61 | 4.28 ± 0.35 | 4.20 ± 0.49 | 4.20 ± 0.33 |
| Treatment 5 weeks | 4.56 ± 0.03** | 3.97 ± 0.22 | 4.18 ± 0.19 | 3.99 ± 0.19 | 3.99 ± 0.27 |
| Treatment 6 weeks | 4.57 ± 0.02** | 3.95 ± 0.16 | 4.12 ± 0.23 | 3.94 ± 0.23 | 4.02 ± 0.13 |
**P < 0.01 vs model group.
The average mouse weight change during the experiment (g/mice)
| Week | Treatment | Normal diet (n = 11) | Hyperlipidemia (n = 12) | CT 100 mg/kg (n = 12) | CT 200mg/kg (n = 12) | Fenofibrate (n = 12) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Begin | 24.48 ± 1.80 | 24.03 ± 2.26 | 24.13 ± 2.12 | 24.21 ± 1.94 | 23.53 ± 2.06 |
| 1 | High lipid diet | 32.69 ± 1.91 | 31.96 ± 2.11 | 32.19 ± 1.50 | 31.56 ± 1.41 | 32.10 ± 1.88 |
| 2 | High lipid diet | 36.93 ± 1.81 | 35.43 ± 2.39 | 36.22 ± 2.02 | 35.11 ± 2.46 | 35.81 ± 2.75 |
| 3 | treatment | 40.37 ± 1.89 | 38.33 ± 2.89 | 39.06 ± 2.11 | 38.16 ± 2.11 | 37.94 ± 3.35 |
| 4 | treatment | 42.05 ± 2.31 | 39.98 ± 3.01 | 40.61 ± 2.45 | 39.45 ± 1.82 | 39.82 ± 3.47 |
| 5 | treatment | 44.11 ± 2.41 | 43.40 ± 3.49 | 43.10 ± 2.85 | 42.42 ± 2.22 | 42.03 ± 4.05 |
| 6 | treatment | 45.77 ± 2.39 | 44.33 ± 3.33 | 43.87 ± 2.53 | 43.71 ± 2.22 | 43.07 ± 4.35 |
| 7 | treatment | 47.07 ± 2.88 | 45.38 ± 3.47 | 45.66 ± 2.79 | 44.97 ± 2.37 | 44.22 ± 4.17 |
| 8 | treatment | 48.61 ± 3.06 | 46.92 ± 3.82 | 47.31 ± 3.02 | 46.83 ± 2.47 | 46.16 ± 4.77 |
The blood lipid levels at 2 weeks and 4 weeks after drug administration
| n | TC (mmol/L) | TG (mmol/L) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 week | 4 week | 2 week | 4 week | ||
| Normal diet | 11 | 3.4 ± 0.43** | 3.28 ± 0.39** | 1.56 ± 0.38** | 2.19 ± 0.54* |
| Model | 12 | 4.75 ± 0.69 | 4.53 ± 0.60 | 2.96 ± 0.96 | 2.83 ± 0.76 |
| CT100mg/kg | 12 | 4.39 ± 0.63 | 4.14 ± 0.48 | 2.24 ± 0.91 | 2.04 ± 0.68* |
| CT 200 mg/kg | 12 | 4.29 ± 0.48 | 4.02 ± 0.38* | 2.12 ± 0.55* | 2.18 ± 0.68 * |
| Fenofibrate | 12 | 4.05 ± 0.84* | 3.70 ± 0.68** | 2.72 ± 0.97 | 2.23 ± 0.48* |
Compared with hyperlipidemia model,*P < 0.05;**P < 0.01.
The blood lipid levels at 6 weeks after drug administration
| n | TC (mmol/L) | TG (mmol/L) | HDL (mmol/L) | LDL (mmol/L) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal diet | 11 | 3.27 ± 0.34** | 1.65 ± 0.27** | 2.52 ± 0.21 | 0.05 ± 0.06* |
| Model | 12 | 4.17 ± 0.70 | 2.69 ± 1.15 | 2.67 ± 0.34 | 0.43 ± 0.45 |
| CT 100 mg/kg | 12 | 3.91 ± 0.45 | 1.66 ± 0.55* | 2.48 ± 0.19 | 0.67 ± 0.27 |
| CT 200 mg/kg | 12 | 3.88 ± 0.47 | 1.54 ± 0.48** | 2.40 ± 0.17* | 0.78 ± 0.30 |
| Fenofibrate | 12 | 3.62 ± 0.62* | 1.92 ± 0.42* | 2.51 ± 0.26 | 0.25 ± 0.15 |
Compared with hyperlipidemia control ,*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.
Liver TG, Liver weight and liver weight index at 6 weeks after drug administration
| n | TC (mg/g wet tissue) | TG (mg/g wet tissue) | Liver weight (g) | liver weight index g/100 g weight) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal diet | 11 | 7.08 ± 0.48** | 29.08 ± 5.73** | 1.80 ± 0.16** | 3.72 ± 0.31** |
| Model | 12 | 16.33 ± 5.47 | 76.88 ± 20.04 | 2.46 ± 0.27 | 5.24 ± 0.33 |
| CT 100 mg/kg | 12 | 11.61 ± 1.39** | 63.67 ± 9.59 | 2.30 ± 0.30 | 4.86 ± 0.46* |
| CT 200 mg/kg | 12 | 12.53 ± 1.84* | 66.31 ± 11.51 | 2.31 ± 0.22 | 4.96 ± 0.35* |
| Fenofibrate | 12 | 11.30 ± 1.72** | 77.43 ± 11.48 | 4.21 ± 0.64** | 9.12 ± 0.93** |
Compared with hyperlipidemia model,*P < 0.05;**P < 0.01.
Figure 2Histopathological changes of rat liver in different groups (HE stained200X upper and 400X lower). (A) five different treatments: Normal diet group; Model group; CT 100mg/kg group; CT 200mg/kg group; Fenofibrate group; and (B) Pathological grading of hepatic steatosis. Each group consisted of 11-12 mice. Values are given as means±SEM. treatment vs. normal group; *p < 0:05, **p < 0:01 vs. Model group.
Figure 3Western blotting for ADRP expression in livers. Representative Western blot of ADRP (A) as well as quantitative analysis of blots (B). ADRP protein level corrected by GAPDH. Data are presented as mean _ SEM. *p < 0:05, **p < 0:01 vs. Normal group.
AST, ALT and ALP at 6 weeks after drug administration
| n | ALT (u/L) | AST (u/L) | ALP (u/L) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal diet | 11 | 51.88 ± 17.99 | 113.87 ± 6.12 | 101.28 ± 2.91 |
| Model | 12 | 53.28 ± 12.12 | 93.72 ± 6.44 | 105.27 ± 3.12 |
| CT 100 mg/kg | 12 | 54.12 ± 13.74 | 103.45 ± 7.32 | 102.12 ± 3.22 |
| CT 200 mg/kg | 12 | 61.24 ± 19.82 | 121 ± 8.91 | 104.21 ± 2.87 |
| Fenofibrate | 12 | 78.87 ± 18.12* | 131.49 ± 6.21* | 412.21 ± 21.2** |
Compared with normal diet control,*P < 0.05;**P < 0.01.